Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas of four individuals, claiming trade-union affiliation, accused of assaulting a postmaster and threatening him to shut the Peerumedu Post Office that remained open during a protest day. Emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offence, the Court held it inappropriate to grant pre-arrest bail. Observing that compelling the closure of a public office through threats and assault is a serious non-bailable offence under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 132, 296(b), 351(2) and 121(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Court directed the accused to surrender for interrogation.

The case stemmed from an incident on 9 July 2025, when a nationwide strike was called by trade unions. The prosecution alleged that at about 9:45 a.m., the accused, claiming membership in the trade unions, obstructed the de facto complainant, a postmaster, from performing his official duties. The complainant had chosen to keep the Peerumedu Post Office open during the strike. Allegedly angered by this act, the accused abused and threatened the complainant, forcing him to close the post office. When the complainant later came out of the office, the first accused reportedly restrained and slapped him on the cheek, further threatening to kill him if he returned to the office.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Touching Private Parts of Minor Not Rape | Offence Is Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO and Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC

Based on these allegations, Crime No. 682 of 2025 was registered, citing offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 132, 296(b), 351(2), and 121(1) of the BNS. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, contending that the allegations were false and exaggerated, that no serious injuries were sustained by the complainant, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The prosecution opposed the plea, asserting the serious and non-bailable nature of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated: "The circumstance that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and obstructed a public servant from performing his duties, and that Section 121 of the BNS has subsequently been incorporated must weigh with this Court to not to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail."

The Court further observed: "Compelling a public office to be closed under threat is a serious offence and such conduct cannot be tolerated or permitted on any grounds. Granting anticipatory bail to persons, who used force to close down an office, that too a public office, does not augur well in a State governed by the rule of law." The Court added that insulating alleged perpetrators of such a crime with an order of pre-arrest bail would encourage repetition of the offensive conduct.

Justice Thomas noted: "Further, an officer, who worked tirelessly, as part of his obligation and duty to the public, was slapped for having kept the public office open on an alleged protest day."

The judgment drew reference to prior precedents, including the Kerala High Court’s decision in Vinod P and Another v. State of Kerala (2019 SCC Online Ker 1012), wherein it was observed that courts should strictly deal with cases of criminal acts under the guise of protests. The Court quoted: "Call for hartal by any political party only gives the right to the members of that political party to withdraw themselves from their work as a protest. It does not empower them to commit criminal acts which tends to interfere in the exercise of the Fundamental Right of any person to move freely anywhere in India and to carry on his trade or business anywhere in the country."

Additionally, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgement in James Martin v. State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 203], where it was recorded: "No person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person or to cause in any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty, property of any citizen in the name of strike."

Also Read: Kerala High Court: Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Not for Correcting All Errors of Administrative Tribunal; Declines to Interfere in Teacher’s Transfer

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated: "Taking note of the serious allegations raised in the crime, and having regard to the conduct of the accused in assaulting a postmaster, that too, for keeping open a public office, I am of the view that petitioners cannot be shown any leniency." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.

"If petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer on 19.09.2025 and if, after interrogation, the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners, then, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without undue delay. Further, if any bail application is filed by them, the same shall be considered without undue delay, in accordance with law."

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Sooraj M. Kartha, Advocate; Shri Swaran Jose, Advocate; Smt. Vrinda Soman, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Noushad K.A., Public Prosecutor

Case Title: R. Thilakan & Others v. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:68315
Case Number: Bail Application No. 9534 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas